March 19, 2012

"... a surprising development for a sitting president, and one that could signal more worrisome financial problems heading into the general election," writes WaPo.

At this point in the last election cycle, Obama had received such large donations from more than 23,000 supporters, more than double the 11,000 who have given him that much this time....

At the end of January, President Obama and the DNC had $74 million on hand for the period before the conventions, according to the latest Federal Election Commission reports. Bush and the Republican National Committee had $144 million at the same point in 2004.

Some bundlers have decided to stop supporting Obama entirely, including several in the finance sector, which has been hit with stringent new regulations pushed by Democrats.

“There’s a lot of disaffection and buyer’s remorse among the people I know,” said one 2008 Obama fundraiser, who is no longer working for the president and was interviewed on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. “At the end of the day, would they vote for him? Maybe, but they’re certainly going to be less active.”

49 comments:

Last time he wasn't a sure thing for the nomination. Now he has all the power of the executive branch to help/hurt potential donors and he can't get bundlers and he can't get folks fired up enough to send a 2k check.

How's all that talk of pitchforks and torches marching on Wall Street going? Those guys know how to take risks and know how to cut their losses as well. Fooled me once, etc.

WaPo tries to put a good spin on it, but these sorts of nuggets slip through

1. collecting 1/4 the number of 2k checks that Bush had at the same time in 20042. spending money at nearly double that rate it's coming in.3. Comparing Obama PLUS DNC totals to just Romney, without factoring in the RNC4. The DNC declaring that it wont give a dime to Congressional campaigns. The DNC is now just another name for the Obama slush fund. 5. and all this trouble is because the GOP is too weak so no money is needed :)

Well, he doesn't need as much money not that he's using taxpayer money to jet around the country having political events in nonpolitical clothing. This week he's going to visit an oil field on federal lands in New Mexico.

On the ladder of legal but corrupt activity by Washington politicians this is probably only middle rung, but it's pathetic nevertheless. Especially pathetic is that the press never addresses the issue, and the public seems to acquiesce.

This year most of my political contributions are going towards local and state candidates as that is where I think my money can make a difference. The Super Pac sweet daddies now own the national elections and it doesn't seem to make much difference who is elected-- as in the case of George W. Obama whose Annualized Growth in Real per Capita Government spending is actually less than the Republicans, and who has kept in place all of W's wars, while disabling many al Qaeeda through drone attacks, and extended secrecy in the name of national security-- So yes I will not contribute to Obama this time around.

Those who voted for Obama don't like being swindled, and Obama, who promised a "change" from what came before, and "hope" for better, has provided only "more of the same (and worse)," (i.e., more and continuing war, and more and continuing preferential treatment for Wall Street and the wealthy elites, and threats of "austerity" for the rest of us).

“There’s a lot of disaffection and buyer’s remorse among the people I know,” said one 2008 Obama fundraiser, who is no longer working for the president and was interviewed on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely.

Hmmm... Is this person afraid of the Obama secret police, or his he just reluctant to open a political rift between himself and friends, colleagues, etc? I suspect the latter. If the former fundraiser is an academic or in the entertainment business the revelation of his identity might even be career threatening. Mention blacklisting in any gathering and the example which immediately comes to mind is the Republican-dominated HUAC of the 1950s, yet a much more effective blacklist has been in effect for a much longer time across a wider cross section of society.

I also suspect a similar reluctance works to inflate Obama's positive poll numbers. Asking the question about Obama is similar to asking someone about their consumption of pornography. If such a poll implied 25% of men view online porn material daily one would be justified to assume the real number to be consider higher than the poll's technical upper boundary, particularly if the poll-takers were predominantly female.

BTW, in case somebody asks -- I never look at porn, and I trust and admire Barack Hussein Obama, and plan to vote for him come November 6th.

The important thing is that by this point he's gathered all easy money he's going to get. From here forward it will require greater and greater expense and effort for each $1000 harvested. You can already see that in January & February expense levels.

And just a few reminders: January 1980, Carter +31; August 1980, Carter +4; July 1988, Dukakis +17; March 2004, Kerry +12.

He is hitting six fund raisers a day now. This guy has only two talents... separating fools from their money and then wasting it. It will probably all end up going to a solar powered teleprompter that catches on fire.

edutcher said: The WaPo is finally acknowledging what has been out there for some time - months, in fact. ... is this the beginning of what Insta predicted, that, once the media figured GodZero would lose, they'd turn on him to save something of their reps?

No. Having watched the MSM in action for some 30 years, this is the part where the corrupt umpire makes a non-essential bad call in favor of the team he's going to rob the win from later in the 9th.

Its positioning so they can pretend they aren't in the tank for Obama.

Just wait until he loses. Allofasudden, there will be a rash of homelessness.

The $1B war chest was a lot of "get in their faces" to bluff everybody.

I don't know. As Chief Executive, he oversees nearly $3,600,000,000,000 in spending per year. Suppose he redistributes a third of a tenth of a percent of that for his reelection. What's to stop him - investigative journalists? Government workers opposed to Democratic rule?

Quaestor said:Mention blacklisting in any gathering and the example which immediately comes to mind is the Republican-dominated HUAC of the 1950s, yet a much more effective blacklist has been in effect for a much longer time across a wider cross section of society.

Great observation. Spot on. Actually your whole post was great.

BTW, in case somebody asks -- I never look at porn, and I trust and admire Barack Hussein Obama, and plan to vote for him come November 6th.

And you'd just love to buy a one-passenger solar-powered car if you could just figure out a way to carry groceries in it...